A new bill proposes that table saw safety rulemaking be prohibited for the next 19 YEARS.
United States lawmakers, Representatives Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D, Washington) and Jeff Duncan (R, South Carolina), just introduced a bipartisan bill intended to block the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from imposing any rule that would require table saws be equipped with flesh detection and injury avoidance technology.
The legislation, titled “Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act,” if signed into law, would:
Advertisement
prohibit the CPSC from implementing a rule related to the proposed table saw rule until at least 5 years after the relevant patents have been dedicated to the public or expired.
If the CPSC must wait for SawStop’s patents to expire, this means no rule on table saw safety requirements would be permitted until at least 2043.
The Representatives say that the CPSC’s proposed table saw safety rulemaking would:
effectively result in a government-mandated monopoly – and it could result in the use of lower-cost circular saws and plywood as makeshift table saws, which can be more hazardous than utilizing a dedicated tool.
Congressman Duncan, one of the lawmakers who introduced the bill, represents South Carolina’s 3rd district. It is perhaps not a coincidence that Ryobi is headquartered in Anderson, South Carolina, which is located in the state’s 3rd congressional district. Ryobi sells a range of portable table saws, and is likely to be significantly impacted should the CPSC’s rulemaking be finalized.
Rep. Gluesenkamp Perez commented (with a break added for readability):
Advertisement
The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s proposed mandate on finger-detection technology could create a monopoly and price out small woodworkers and tradespeople in rural communities like mine.
I’m introducing this bipartisan legislation to ensure other saw manufacturers have time to catch up and bring lower-priced finger-detection technology to market before any restriction could take effect.
The announcement reads:
This legislation would prohibit the CPSC from implementing a rule related to the proposed table saw rule until at least 5 years after the relevant patents have been dedicated to the public or expired.
The bill – here’s a copy of it (PDF) – lists out all of the patents that the PTI has been arguing about after SawStop announced its willingness to conditionally dedicate the key ‘840 patent to the public.
The Representatives wants to prohibit the CPSC from implementing:
any rule related to the proposed rule on the Safety Standard Addressing Blade-Contact Injuries on Table Saws (88 Fed. Reg. 74909 until at least 5 years after –
1) the latest date on which each covered patent has expired; or
2) each covered patent has been dedicated to the public under section 253(b) of title 35, United States Code.
Here are the “Covered Patents” specifically referenced by the bill:
- (1) Patent number 8,061,245.
- (2) Patent number 9,724,840.
- (3) Patent number 10,384,281.
- (4) Patent number 10,442,107.
- (5) Patent number 10,864,651.
- (6) Patent number 10,981,238.
- (7) Patent number 11,098,849.
SawStop already pledged to conditionally dedicate the ‘840 patent, number (2) on this list, to the public.
Conveniently, the PTI industry group provided the same list in their communications and recent objections to the CPSC (source, PDF), along with expiration dates.
| Patents | Expiration Date |
|---|---|
| 8,061,245 | 5/29/2026 |
| 10,384,281 | 5/23/2038 |
| 10,442,107 | 12/10/2036 |
| 10,864,651 | 11/12/2034 |
| 10,981,238 | 9/29/2030 |
| 11,098,849 | 7/6/2037 |
The bill is seeking to block CPSC safety rulemaking on table saw flesh detection and blade-contact injury mitigation until at least 5 years after either the latest date on which each covered patent has expired, or SawStop gives away much of their patented IP regarding table saw safety technologies.
Going by the list of patents and expiration dates that the PTI has been referring to, which corresponds to the same patents referenced in the bill, the Representatives are effectively asking that table saw flesh detection safety tech mandates be prohibited until at least 2043.
(As the final patent on the list expires in 2038, the minimal 5-year waiting period takes would prohibit CPSC action until 2043.)
Thus, as I understand it, this means that the Representatives want Congress to block CPSC safety standard rulemaking on table saw flesh detection implementation for at least the next 19 YEARS.
Additional Background, Context, and Updates
The Power Tool Institute (PTI) is comprised of major power tool brands whose broad product catalogs include portable and jobsite table saws, and is vehemently opposed to the CPSC’s proposed rulemaking.
In a recent hearing, CPSC Commissioner Trumka, in addressing the PTI manager, said:
[the PTI’s management company] has a business model that I think virtually no one’s ever heard of, that I find kind of interesting. It’s a for-profit firm that gets hired by nonprofit shell trade associations to run them, and I say shell trade associations because they have no employees. Their work is carried out by [the trade management company]. And your clients are 23 different trade associations.
So it’s not surprising when we see you use the same playbook for multiple clients when you come here [to present at hearings in opposition of safety rulemaking proposals].
In the same hearing, the PTI representative said:
We [PTI and its table saw manufacturers] have licensing agreements for anyone who would like to license our patents, so I think if there is a manufacturer that is interested in licensing the patents, they are free to contact us, and we can provide them with that licensing agreement.
That the PTI has said interested [non-member] companies can contact them about licensing PTI table saw safety tech suggests they have already developed related technologies.
In today’s bill announcement, the Representatives discuss the risk of a SawStop monopoly:
The patent is currently held by SawStop, and while the company pledged to unlock the patent on the effective date of the rule if it is finalized, they have sued competitors who have developed similar technologies. Prior to that date, other manufacturers could face lawsuits if they began research and development on table saws with finger detection.
This argument by Representatives Gluesenkamp Perez and Duncan is very similar to those made by the PTI in their attempts to discourage the CPSC from passing table saw rulemaking on SawStop-like flesh detection tech.
However, SawStop has pledged to release a key patent to the public should the CPSC rulemaking go into effect.
The PTI – and now the Representatives’ – argument is that SawStop could sue competitors over infringement during the development period and prior to the effective date of any CPSC rulemaking.
SawStop recently addressed this concern. In a letter to the CPSC Chair dated April 2nd, 2024 (PDF source), SawStop CEO Matt Howard said the following, with emphasis my own:
As I stated in my testimony before the Commission on February 28, 2024, SawStop Holding LLC and SawStop, LLC commit to dedicate U.S. Patent 9,724,840 to the public when a final rule as described in the Commission’s recent supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking to address blade-contact injuries on table saws becomes effective.
SawStop Holding LLC and SawStop, LLC further commit to not enforce U.S. Patent 9,724,840 against manufacturers for making table saws between when the final rule is published in the Federal Register and when the final rule becomes effective.
SawStop already said they will release the key patent to avoid it being an obstacle to competitor innovation, should flesh detection and injury mitigation be mandated. In response to additional concerns and objections repeatedly voiced by the PTI, SawStop’s head has said that the company won’t enforce the patent between when the final rule is published and is set to become effective.
As you might be aware, SawStop did sue a competitor over patent infringement, and the tool brand – Bosch – was found to have infringed upon SawStop patents. The Bosch Reaxx saw was pulled from the market. However, it has come to light that Bosch is actively licensing SawStop tech, but has not developed or redeveloped products in this space.
See Also: Bosch Reaxx Table Saw – New Info on Why You Can’t Buy it
Commissioner Trumka had previously asked the PTI for details on their members’ progress towards competitive technologies – the same that the PTI already mentioned it is willing to license to other companies.
At the hearing Trumka, in addressing the PTI, said:
Your member companies, the power tool manufacturers are making money, and I’m not seeing the evidence they’re investing it in making these tools safer.
So far, the PTI has not answered the Commissioner’s questions, citing confidentiality agreements that its members imposed on themselves.
Here is an excerpt from a recent letter sent by PTI Executive Manager Susan Orenga to to the CPSC’s Commissioner Trumka:
But you have already dismissed PTI’s concerns without determining if they are valid, or even awaiting the analysis of CPSC staff. Your prejudgment of these important and pertinent facts, and your open hostility to PTI’s position during the oral presentation on this rulemaking, as documented in our March 12, 2024 letter to Chairman Hoehn-Saric (CPSC Docket 2011-0078-1550). In addition, your refusal to meet with industry (except for the petitioner) shows that you have an unalterably closed mind on the specific facts associated with the patent issues and other concerns raised by PTI in opposition to the proposed rule. Your unequivocal position has forced us to make the unusual but necessary request that you refrain from participation in the Commission’s vote on whether to adopt a final rule in this proceeding.
With the recently introduced bill – the “Preserving Woodworking Traditions and Blocking Government-Mandated Monopolies Act” – the proposed rulemaking is bound to receive increased attention.
The only thing missing from all of the recent debate and drama are alternative suggestions on how to make table saws safer for consumers and woodworkers of all skill levels. It has been repeatedly argued by safety and consumer advocacy groups that table saws continue to be responsible for an unacceptably high number of grievous blade-contact injuries and amputations.
Safety organizations – such as UL Solutions – and consumer safety advocacy groups have practically been begging the CPSC to proceed with the rulemaking to promote table saw safety.
The rulemaking, should it be finalized, is likely to have long-lasting impact on the portable table saw market. Should it not be finalized, what other steps will be done to reduce the number of traumatic blade contact injuries?
What will this new bill mean for the CPSC’s rulemaking process?
Prior Coverage on the CPSC’s Recent Movements Towards Table Saw Regulations
The Media Sees Politics in CPSC’s Proposed Table Saw Safety Rules
PTI’s Fight Against Table Saw Regulations
Bosch Reaxx Table Saw – New Info on Why You Can’t Buy it
Latest Table Saw Safety Tech Hearing is Full of Drama
SawStop Tries to Save Face with Patent Promise
Harbor Freight Cannot Easily Develop their Own Flesh Detection Table Saw
Companies Allege SawStop Refused to License Safety Tech
We’re Much Closer to SawStop-Like Table Saw Regulations – Update
TomD
19 years as a maximum – 5 years if SawStop pledges all of them publicly today.
Stuart
I think that the growing list of obstructing patents is a red herring.
The PTI claims to have competing technology, but wouldn’t disclose anything to the US CPSC Commissioners. So how can CPSC staff members determine which patents are in the way of fair competition?
PTI member brands don’t seem to want to implement flesh detection and injury avoidance technologies at all.
Bosch CAN right now, as they have a licensing agreement with SawStop. It seems they don’t want to, and the same could be true for other PTI member competitors.
Asking SawStop to relinquish multiple patents that might not even be applicable to the PTI’s Joint Venture technologies seems like a big ask – and I’m guessing they know it.
Should SawStop commit to dedicating those additional patents to the public, how many other “key patents” will the PTI identify and portray as being obstructive and anti-competitive?
I think they’re really hoping this gets kicked down the road for another 19 years. As a reminder, this whole thing goes back 21 years.
TonyT
Sawstop doesn’t have to make the patents free, all they have to do is to specify which patents are necessary and make those available on a FRAND basis, just like companies have to do for cellular standards and such.
IIRC, Sawstop has not made that commitment. (And yes, the PITI doesn’t seem any better).
As a general principle, I’d like to see an emphasis on affordably reducing severe injuries from all causes, instead of mandating a particular technology that only helps with some.) Overall, I’d say the EU does safety better than the US, and they don’t require Sawstop tech.
Kyle
Mandating a technology without requiring relevant protected IP (including but not limited to patents; programming like software/firmware is often a crucial component that may be protected in other ways) to be made available on a FRAND basis is tantamount to mandating that manufacturers either pay whatever the IP owner asks, develop a comparable solution that meets the standard without infringing protected IP, or cede market share to other producers who can. Would the PTI prefer to kill or significantly postpone the measure rather than find a fair way to implement it? It sure seems that way. Even if some of their complaints are in bad faith, I still think the basic premise that mandating reasonable licensing terms for *all* of the IP needed to implement the rule would have to be part of the rule itself.
Jack Smith
The red herring is that there’s no mention of a high quality, non annoying easy removal -reinstall blade guards. Also no mention of preventing kickback. This is just a big money grab and legally mandated monopoly.
MM
Agreed. In my opinion the single best thing that could be done to reduce table-saw injuries is to engineer better guards. I have seen time and time again throughout my career situations where people have removed riving knives, guards, and anti-kickback pawls because they were poorly designed afterthoughts that got in the way of getting work done. If those things were instead a pleasure to use rather than being a frustrating hassle people would not remove them. I would be happy to pay extra for a really nice guard.
I also think William had a great point below: onboard storage for push sticks & blocks is important. People are much more likely to use safety devices like those when they are convenient. Thankfully many models already have this.
Jason
They already exist. It takes me a few seconds to swap between the guard and riving knife on my table saw. It takes longer for me to pull the riving knife out of it’s holder than it does to install. BEing able to do so in 20 seconds or less was mandated at least 15 years do. This argument is bunk.
JOHN NEWTON
Some people who never used a profession cabinet table saw seem to have lots of thoughts.
Plain and simple, things with blades (especially spinning blades) are dangerous.
It is the user’s responsibility to take care when using them. ( I sort of think of the axium “guns to don’t kill, people do”. Or “Cars don’t kill, people do,.” I could on and on, I think you get my point).
I believe the folks, who trying to protect us from ourselves, are creating a monopoly and ultimately hurting the users of woodworking equipment. Every tool in my shop can hurt you (badly). We don’t need government to protect us from ourselves.
I am hopeful the proposed legislation passes, becomes law, and restores some sanity.
Best regards
Adam Morris
Seatbelts are mandatory in cars. Using them is mandatory.
Are you really suggesting that people will just safely use cars because they know they are dangerous?
Mandating both guards and other safety technologies does not seem unreasonable to me.
But then I was in a bad motor accident a couple of years ago caused by the other driver.
Would you be happy if they simply mandated that “guards, automatic blade stops, and whatever other reasonable safety features we can think of should be included, and any relevant patents must be licenced at a reasonable cost” or do you think that manufacturers should be allowed to sell a table saw consisting of a spinning blade sticking through a table with no safety features as long as they include a manual that says “this is dangerous, don’t cut yourself using it.”
DRT42
You don’t have to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle (where I live, anyway). If you want to wear a helmet, fine. If not, don’t. I don’t own a motorcycle, but I like having the choice.
Actually, the data about cars seems to indicate that the more safety features that are added, the more risks drivers take. The thought process seems to be, “I have an airbag, so it’s OK to tailgate.”
Jay
Vehicles are on public roads. These are tools in our PRIVATE homes. I do not want Sawstop tech on my saws. It’s great for some, but no thank you. I know there’s been activations on wet/damp wood. Which means unless you have that $75 spare safety break, you’re out SOL. Just like most things, woodworking can be dangerous if you’re careless. This is just another example of government being too big.
David Z
The one fault in your logic is that the cost of caring for the injury and possible disability is carried as a burden to everyone that pays for medical insurance, workers comp, and government support programs.
MM
@David Z
That does not necessarily have to be the case. Take auto insurance for example: if someone modifies their car and gets into a wreck during a street race the insurance company can deny coverage because the modifications were not disclosed. The same applies to warranties: if you modify something or you don’t maintain it properly then warranties are typically void. Likewise, insurance and related programs could be structured in a similar way. Had a table saw accident? You’re covered. Unless the accident happened because you took the guard off.
MFC
Everything comes at a cost. If you desire more security that usually comes with a price of freedom. If you want more freedom, then you will undoubtedly be burdened with a greater responsibility for your well-being.
There is no right answer to the argument. It just depends upon what kind of person you are. What do you value more?
Governments have always tried to find the balancing point between the two, both in regard to public and corporate freedoms, but the enemy of either is humankind itself.
So, let them argue until they are blue and hope that democracy does its job. The majority will win, whichever side of the fence they may be upon.
Mark a Rodney
One voter sits in ryobis district for one and he’s willing not to pass it for 19 years on ryobis behalf .If they would just redesign the guards for safety purposes which probably hasn’t been done in the past at all but I’m not sure,we wouldn’t be having this conversation.it would probably be cheaper and only making the jobsite saws costs another 10 bucks or so would be better than 120$ plus more if the sawstop is activated. Why couldn’t they make a resettable stop that you can reset yourself without costing you more money.? Well they wouldn’t have a steady stream of money coming in that’s why . Sawstop won’t make them patents public because they like most companies want a monopoly without it actually looking like one. Sorry if I got off track.
Jronman
Would something like the Festool kickback stop be an option? It doesn’t detect flesh but it detects a bind and binds tend to cause kickback. From my understanding kickback is more common than blade contract.
Jronman
It is interesting the school I went to had 4 industrial SawStops and none of them had riving knives. This was not long ago either.
kent_skinner
There’s a lever inside the throat plate to add or remove the riving knife and/or guard. It take 15-30 seconds.
It’s a really stupid move for a school to remove them, from a liability point of view.
Scene: liability lawsuit in court
Prosecution: so you removed an industry standard safety feature and made them inaccessible to students?
Defense: Um, how much $$ to settle?
Brian J. Baumgartner
I’d counter-argue to the plaintiff that the PRACTICED industry standard IS TO remove them.
Brent
That is weird the college I work at has 5 or 6 Saw Stops in their classroom woodshops plus 4 Altendorf sliding saws. And only the two saws that are setup for Dado stacks don’t have riving knives or their blade guards. The riving knives are on all other saws. The blade guard can be removed if needed for crosscut with the miter gauge which almost always has a sacrificial wood fence attached to prevent tear out.
Roy
The reason for this is simple: dados are not through cuts meaning that the intention is not to separate the stock completely. Inasmuch, the riving knife is only to keep a kerf from binding the back of the blade on a through cut. The riving knife has to match the thickness of the saw blade for it to be effective. I personally like the compact blade guard for SawStop over the original longer one.
BTW, German technology is far more advanced in their woodworking tool including sliding table saws—it is just that the prices are outrageous.
Brian J. Baumgartner
I concur with Roy- it would make no sense to utilize a riving knife with a dado stack, and I think the riving knife holding mechanism would have to be redesigned to comply (not to mention a different riving knife setup for EVERY dado stack configuration).
Gordon
Festool and Sawstop are owned by the same company so the SawStop patents wouldn’t affect them.
Plus, Kickback isn’t covered by these rulings. It’s all in the flesh detection part.
TomD
“Missing a finger” is bloody and extreme and plays well on the news.
“I got punched in the gut by a piece of wood causing internal bleeding” doesn’t play well at all, AND requires admitting that the users are often being incredibly stupid when using powerful tools (because they’ve often removed the kickback prevention equipment).
Brian J. Baumgartner
Kickback injuries are much like losing a finger- if it occurs, it is because the operator screwed up, acted with complacency and indifference, or both. And I find it very hard to believe an experienced woodworker would not know better.
Bob+Hinden
“The PTI – and now the Representatives’ – argument is that SawStop could sue competitors over infringement during the development period and prior to the effective date of any CPSC rulemaking.”
As far as I understand the patent system, this is not true. You only infringe on patents when a product is being sold. All R&D is fine.
Also, I wonder what the likelihood that this would become a law. Would need to be passed the house, then the Senate, and then signed by the president. That could take 19 years 🙂
Stuart
That was my understanding as well, but it’s been a PTI talking point ever since SawStop’s surprise announcement.
SawStop said they won’t sue for development – and I suppose marketing – between rulemaking finalization and its effective date.
I wonder if it’s a coincidence that the Representative from Ryobi’s HQ district is one of the two lawmakers introducing the bill before Congress.
Munklpunk
Probably every decent quality company has designs and prototypes, if not fully completed ready to sell saws. Every company purchased and reverse engineers there competitors products. Except Dodge, I think it was a Honda rep that said Chrysler products no one bothered with.
Kris
I’m an IP attorney and the acronym we were taught is MUSIO – infringement occurs when someone makes, uses, sells, imports, or offers for sale the patented invention. This is 35 usc 271.
It may be possible to secretly R&D the saw stop behind closed doors, and sure enough big enough companies will often have enforcement teams looking for infringers to pursue with a licensing carrot or infringement lawsuit stick. There may not be many damages yet if there hasn’t been a sale, but injunctive relief at the least.
But simply bc you don’t sell something does not mean you aren’t infringing. I can’t make my own Lamborghini and be free and clear to drive it around simply bc I haven’t sold it.
Also keep in mind that companies will often patent the process of making a product as well as the structure of the product itself, covering both bases.
Rob G Mann
This is mostly correct. Any development (prototyping) done in the US certainly would be an infringement. But TTI could freely do the development in a non-patented country and import into the US on the day of patent expiry.
As a unrelated side note, this is not true for pharmaceuticals. You can develop in the US to your heart’s content during the life of the patent. This is the “Bolar exemption” to promote the policy goal of having generic drugs be available on day one upon patent expiry.
S
Interestingly, I accidentally dove into patent law a while back after finding some simply-made products that were being well over-priced, but patented.
One can only sue for patent infringement if a product is being sold/traded for. But there’s 2 loopholes.
I could pay a company to make all the parts from files I created, and legally assemble it myself for personal use.
I can also legally give that product away for free to anyone/everyone.
Though, if I were to go out of my way and create 100,000 widgets which I then gave away for free, a company still could sue, win, and receive compensation from me for damaging their brand/image/profitability. No different than a personal slander case.
They just couldn’t sue me for violating their patents because no money, goods, or services changed hands.
George
That last bit, not being able to be sued because no money changed hands, is absolutely untrue. I can attest to this from my own personal professional experience as well as consultations with attorneys regarding non-derivative open source software projects.
Copying someone else’s patented design is actionable without the permission of the owner, regardless of monetary gain or loss on the offender’s part.
Ray
Regulatory agencies, who are not elected, can make mandates, which are in fact laws. Elected representatives cannot change those mandates unless they make an actual law and that takes action by the House, then the Senate, and then signed by the President. What’s wrong with this picture?
Stuart
In theory, consumer product safety should be above politics.
Another Bob
I agree they should be above partisan politics but they are not and it’s getting worse.
Alphabet agencies full of unelected bureaucrats should not be able to interpret or mandate laws.
For the last 40 years they’ve had a SCOTUS ruling called Chevron deference to allow them to do so.
Currently there are two cases before SCOTUS now dealing with this topic. It is my hope that these new rulings will gut Chevron Deference and require the accountability of elected officials. Don’t get me wrong, elected politicians do stupid as well. At least in theory they have some accountability.
From the questions asked at the oral arguments, it seems that the court is not split among political lines. My opinion is that’s usually a good sign that scholarly law folks are actually doing scholarly stuff instead of being political agents. SCOTUS rulings typically come out in June so we will soon see if anything changes.
Aaron
I don’t think you’re being honest with yourself when refecting on the real impact of undoing the Chevron case.
I agree they can sometimes hold power that is not from elected people but I’d argue those positions should never be electable since they would represent political shift rather than genuine consumer and citizen safety.
The EPA could use better guidelines that makes change effective but over a more reasonable time (much of it already is).
Without consumer protection agencies, the market is ripe for abuse from lobbying that with absolutely and materially impact you negatively.
Rob
In the USA, not much. At the federal level, nothing gets done unless the three branches of government are all on the same team. That’s rare these days. By doling out basic operations we get the 1 and only benefit of a dictatorship without, y’know, being under a fascist regime: being able to respond to any situation in a fast and timely manner. This is super important with food and drug contamination and related outbreaks. Maybe not so much with table saw safety. That said, we’d never get to the point where Saw Stop patents are being offered up if this was brought up in Congress. Instead, campaign contributions and/or re-election concerns would just get in the way. It’s not just about big business sticking their money into politics, it’s the real pressure of the politician worrying about how their actions may cause job losses and, consequently, the loss of their own. It’s certainly easier for an appointed vs an elected official to make regulatory decisions.
Robert
Agree. This strikes me mostly as a gesture by these congressmen. Very few bills run the gauntlet to passage. I just don’t see this bill enough support in both chambers, unless it is revised to be a rider on a more important bill.
Rob
I don’t know. We currently have the most do nothing congress in our history if I’m not mistaken. This is a sort of kick the can down the road bill that benefits business while not affecting most citizens. I could see bills like this being passed through just to seem less “do nothing”.
OldDominionDIYer
This is a good thing I hate when companies create a true innovation in safety then lock it down so pitiful! I would be pleased to hear of the bankruptcy of SAWSTOP that would be the perfect ending!
Jason
Then we’d be stuck with the same crappy guards we have for decades. What SawStop did with their patents is absolutely the norm; it’s jus that no one cares unless it’s a patent on something they care about. THEN it’s a big deal.
Saws won’t get safer without companies like SawStop pushing it. If they hadn’t done this, no one would even be talking about it.
TomD
Advancements occur without force, when it’s cheap enough – if “doing the Sawstop stuff” was a minor or nonexistent cost – there’d be no complaints about it at all.
At the root of all this is the “triple the cost of a table saw” issue.
William Foster
Thank you! No one else is mentioning this. The monopoly issue is BS, everybody knows the government hasn’t cared about the existence of monopolies for the past 40 years. Many small contractors and tradesmen will stop buying portable table saws if flesh detection systems are mandated for table saws because of the cost. Secondly, I can see an OSHA rule coming out that all jobsite table saws have flesh detection. Thirdly, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you if you think these systems won’t be mandated on band saws and mitre saws in the future.
Stuart
It’s perhaps not that simple.
There have been injury lawsuits, with a pattern of courts finding portable table saws to have defective designs that allowed users to suffer grievous permanent injuries.
Increased liability for injuries caused by saws that don’t have AIM tech has been seen as a major reason brands declined to adopt the technology. I don’t know how accurate or influential this has been or remains today.
At the same time, there have been numerous reports of failed licensing attempts in recent years.
It seems that SawStop doesn’t want to license the tech unless they have to, and other saw makers don’t want to design or implement AIM tech unless they have to.
S
With 6 patents as well as the agreed upon ‘freebie’ sawstop is offering, it seems like there’s still plenty of legal ground for them to stand to pursue anyone that makes a similar product. Removing only one mine in a minefield doesn’t make for a new playground.
Really though, this entire thing is full of more bad actors than I care to count.
PTI uses lots of meaningless words to try to distract from the point enough to bury it. Any attempt at a more in-depth discussion with them about any point they raise is met with even less of an answer. They remind me of a small dog. Lots of loud barking, but they cower and hide as soon as the big dogs step up to say hello.
Sawstop pushes the concept of safety, but quickly hides behind patent law once anyone try’s to improve market-wide safety. I can understand their goal of market sales and laser focus on selling complete saws, but it reminds me of examples like Kodak thinking film will last forever.
Sawstops lack of diversification is going to be their downfall. If they had spent time to create a pre-built module that could be readily produced, they could easily act as a supplier instead, and serve a much larger market selling to all the other companies that could use this component.
Now we’ve got some new government players involved, but I’m convinced this is more puppeting by the ominous PTI. It doesn’t smell like they’re acting on a vested personal interest, it smells like they got a new car in their garage out of the deal.
And then there’s bosch, who put all the pieces in place and can sell the product, but went on for more than 5 years not correcting market assumptions they couldn’t sell.
This whole thing doesn’t look to be going anywhere any time soon. While I can see the advantage, I don’t see the cost being worthwhile to most people.
Stuart
With Bosch, their argument is that modern cellular and wireless signals interfere too much with the tech they developed.
Meanwhile, they have an entire business division dedicated to sensor technologies – https://www.bosch-sensortec.com/
Ben
As much as I don’t want to it’s becoming painfully clear that I’ll just have to save up to buy a SawStop because no other company is willing to come out with a cabinet table saw with finger saving technology.
Stuart
All of this fighting isn’t even over cabinet saws, and I don’t think we’ve heard from brands like Powermatic, Jet, or Harvey yet.
I don’t think any PTI brands make cabinet saws. All of the resistance is over roughly $100 to $300 portable jobsite table saws, and roughly $400 to $700 jobsite table saws on rolling stands.
William
I’ve been following your reporting and didn’t realize this was just for jobsite saws, though I’m sure you mentioned it. That makes it all a bit more interesting. Would this ultimately require cabinet style saws to have the technology too? I suppose that could be glossed over since what’s another $200 on a $1,500 saw vs a $100-$300 saw.
TomD
That’s why the fight is happening – the big cabinet saw companies don’t really care because they’ll implement it or license it and it’ll be a 5-10% increase in cost that they can pass on to the customer. Same reason most of the car manufacturers don’t fight “very hard” over new safety features.
It would decimate the cheap table saws, which is why the cheap table saw manufacturers are fighting it tooth and nail; they know they wouldn’t be able to sell anything at those prices even if they do have it licensed.
William Foster
I think it’s considerably more than a 5-10% cost increase for a cabinet saw. Implementation would involve saw manufacturers cutting costs elsewhere on the saw. (Smaller motors, crap fences, etc)
Rob
I think it also has a lot to do with cheap American consumers expecting to have a whole ass tablesaw for less than the cost of a fancy dinner. I don’t believe for a second that losing sales on near zero margin budget table saws that cost $50-70 to ship to the store is going to affect these tool brands.
Mike
I don’t know enough about SawStop but have been impressed with their technology since it came out. I also don’t know a whole lot about patent law but it seems to me that if SawStop sued people after releasing the patent they would look pretty bad and that kind of bad PR can be ruinous. But then again, Volvo did the same thing to seat belts, and American car companies complained they would have to charge more per car to cover the extra expenses if they were mandated. And here we are, 40 or 50 years later where our great American big three languish in abject ruin because consumers wouldn’t buy cars that cost 100 dollars more. Oh wait. Anytime a multi billion dollar company complains about a mandate that makes something safer I automatically assume it’s good for us, bad for them and thus I want the mandate to go through.
Doresoom
If SawStop doesn’t plan to sue anyone at all, then why didn’t they release ALL their patents? Not just one that was about to expire anyway?
Let’s be generous and say material and labor cost of producing seatbelts for a car is the same as the saw cartridge. $100 on a $20,000 car for seatbelts is 0.5% of the cost. $100 on a $200 table saw is 50% of the cost.
So it’s not an apples to apples comparison at all when it comes to percent of the final product price. Mandating SawStop technology for the cheapest table saws will significantly increase their cost and place it beyond many DIYers’ price range. Then you’ll have people making sketchy homemade table saws by flipping over a circular saw, resulting in more injuries than before the ruling was made anyway.
I applaud elected representatives that are acting to reign in an unelected regulatory agency board.
Potato
Can’t really trust a corporation to act altruistically any more than you can trust the average person to always be 100% safe when it’s easy to lose concentration or take a risk to get something done faster.
The cost of a jobsite table saw doubling is a pretty minor effect in the scheme of things compared to other work expenses like the price of a new car these days.
Or medical bills resulting from an injury.
Jeff Portzline
As a Sawstop owner and a previous craftsman owner it’s just not the flesh sensing technology. When you build a table saw that can withstand the force it takes to stop a blade and pull it under the table at thousands of a second. The chassis you have to have is insane. Your talking Kenworth semi versus Ford Pickup. The brake cartridge on Sawstop is only 120.00 if you have to replace it. That being said how do I still have all my fingers. I practice safe operation of all the tools in my shop. Had my Craftsman since 92 just got my saw stop 2 years ago. The technology is great but don’t EV this industry too. America will loose again if you do.
TomD
I think a very reasonable “middle ground” would be to require that saws provided by employers to employees would have to implement safety features, because employees can easily be pressured to do stupid stuff in the name of speed.
Just like a bunch of commercial/industrial equipment has safety features that home equipment may not have.
William
What are other examples where CPSC has made positive changes in the last 20 years? I guess, why can’t they stay out of it and let market economics determine the technology people use? If it’s good tech and people want to use it, that’s why patents expire. This seems to just be accelerating and forcing a solution that would ultimately come about on it’s own.
To answer your question about what other technology could be used to reduce injury:
– saws come with a stand that can support X weight and minimal flex in lateral directions
– include outfeed support of a certain size
– Magnetic switch to prevent accidently turning the motor on when dealing with a popped breaker (DWS749RS has this)
– Provide storage for blade guard, push pads, on the saw
– tool free guard removal
Jason
Market economics never push safety. Lawsuits (ie, money) push safety innovation. It took a mandate to add quick-change riving knives to table saws in the first place.
Another 19 years is too long to wait on safety updates, especially since (as Stuart pointed out) this has already been going on for 21 years.
TomD
Cirrus developed their “plane on a parachute” feature without direct lawsuits or government requirements. The market CAN develop safety features, but it has to be something that will sell, or at least differentiate.
Stuart
“Human People United Against Eating Laundry Pods”
https://www.loc.gov/item/2020715013/
Robert
It was really dumb to make laundry pods look like taffy candy with those colorful swirls. I always scratched my head over that. I don’t see a good reason besides eye catching looks for marketing for that.
Josh R
Honestly, we’re probably all safer with imperfect professionally made table saws than we are with nightmare diy table saws. It boggles my mind how the CPSC didn’t seem to think of requiring FRAND licensing for flesh detecting saw technology if they adopted the requirement.
TomD
All they need to do is indemnify anyone from a patent suit brought under anything required by the ruling. Now the CPSC might not be able to grant that, but Congress certainly could.
Jason
This is a great example of politicians being roped into something they know little about and are acting on information strictly from lobbyists. And a monopoly? There are all kinds of monopolies in this country already. This is the PTI members worried about their shareholder’s quarterly returns.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: Safety costs money and no corporation is going to spend a dime more than they’re required to. If safety isn’t offered, no one is going to avoid a saw purchase – they just accept nothing better exists. Regulation forces innovation, not the other way around.
DaveInVT
Normally, I would agree with you about lobbyists and clueless representatives. And Stuart’s correlation between the SC rep and Ryobi sharing the 3rd district is perfectly justified. However, I moved to SC just before COVID (I’m a Yankee) and at the time I was a wood turner. SC, regardless of what you may think about the rest of SC, is like a woodworking mecca, and I briefly belonged to a woodworker’s guild. The guild was large, and had (here’s the point) more money than they could spend. I knew that fact because my wife was a lifelong friend with the wife of the now retired guild president. I’ve driven past the Ryobi plant on I-85 many times, but I live in the next district over so I know the feel of the area.
I think it is entirely possible that a couple of guilds made up of regular woodworking enthusiasts (constituents) contacted this rep I know nothing about and got his attention.
Or pessimism is appropriately applied and it was all Ryobi.
Stuart
That one of the lawmakers introducing this bill represents Ryobi’s HQ district is extremely noteworthy. It’s not good or bad, it’s a fact that warranted mentioning.
I don’t think we’ve heard from Ryobi or TTI yet, with respect to public comments or input to the CPSC. Maybe woodworkers got the attention of the Rep, or a friend or family member that works for Ryobi or TTI, or it could have been a strategic move by PTI. It could also be a coincidence, but I doubt that.
I think that, as a DIY brand with table saws in the $149 to $400 range, their ENTIRE table saw catalog could be bleached out by CPSC rulemaking if there aren’t any exclusions or compromises. Other brands, such as Dewalt, has larger saws and the ability to charge higher prices.
Even though I didn’t see them chime in about the rulemaking yet, Ryobi has high stakes. The rulemaking could also present other opportunities, such as broader adoption of their track saws. But overall I think the rulemaking with be a huge loss for the brand’s interests.
I received the press release to my direct and private email address. How’d they get my email? That prompted me to look for connections, on top of my wondering why these two very dissimilar Reps. are behind the bill.
Aaron SD
It’s amazing that SawStop hasn’t gotten more negative publicity than they have.
I’d like to see injury rate data from SawStop to see how much it is helping or if people are being less safe and just relying on the technology.
I also wouldn’t expect the other companies to jump in with table saws in 2043 or whenever the patents expire unless the liability side of it is addressed. I think that is holding back the companies more than they are saying and able, for now, to hide behind the patents so don’t have to deal with it.
eddiesky
I’m curious how home owners insurance will go about “unsafe tablesaws” in a garage or basement for the hobbyist woodworker? While I think most home owners DIY renovating, a jobsite saw is good enough, along with a compound miter saw. But how many have basic safety like riving knife, large shutoff and blade guard? And with cabinet saws, which are the big boys, I would be leery for an insurance agent to inspect my home to raise my premium.
“Do you own any power tools? If yes, please list. “…
Right?
Stuart
Isn’t that a matter of health insurance?
If you accidently cut your hand when chopping onions, your health insurance pays for it, not your home insurance. Why would tools be any different?
Mountain bikes, skateboards, garbage disposals, keyboards, crossfit equipment… personal injuries are typically handled through health insurance, not homeowners insurance.
Another Bob
I think Stuart is right I think it’s more a health insurance issue.
But Eddiesky Makes an important point. Certain objects may not be banned but the insurance companies for individuals or businesses can raise the premiums so high that they no longer financially make sense. My fear is this tactic will be used to limit personal freedom. “AI drives the car better than you. If you want to have affordable car insurance you have to let the computer drive.”
Or “Table saws, motorcycles and guns are dangerous. We won’t give you an affordable life insurance, long-term care insurance or health insurance if you use any of xxx items.”
Stuart
PTI: “Voluntary standards are working”
UL: “We strongly support this proposal and believe that the use of active injury mitigation (AIM) technology will significantly reduce the incidents of devastating and life-long injuries caused by table saws.”
SawStop: “we will not allow this patent to be an obstacle to a safer future”
PTI: “SawStop could sue a table saw manufacturer for developing an AIM-enabled table saw prior to the rule’s effective date”
SawStop: “[We] further commit to not enforce U.S. Patent 9,724,840 against manufacturers for making table saws between when the final rule is published in the Federal Register and when the final rule becomes effective.”
PTI: (presents a list of more patents with expirations reaching into 2038)
No party has yet to suggest alternate technologies that would “significantly reduce the incidents of devastating and life-long injuries caused by table saws.”
The CPSC is trying to save woodworkers’ fingers via the only way they see available. Consumer advocacy groups and safety bodies (e.g. UL) support the rulemaking. Table saw makers oppose it. SawStop seems indifferent and I get the sense they just want to be left alone. Woodworker opinions are split down the middle.
Is there a need to reduce the number of blade-contact injuries?
How can this be accomplished?
Regarding liability, let’s say there are two bike riders. One wears a helmet, and the other doesn’t, and they both suffer the same fall. The rider wearing a helmet will likely have lower medical expenses. Objectively, should both bicyclists pay the same insurance premium?
We might see a situation where businesses carry a lower injury premium if their saws are equipped with flesh detection and active injury mitigation tech.
Look at the auto insurance market. An accident-free 18 year old male is likely to have higher premiums than an accident-free 35 year old male that’s married with kids.
Back to the point. How can table saws be made safer without AIM tech?
The PTI seems intent on maintaining the status quo. Is this in consumers’ best interests? Some say yes, others no, and nobody is saying “well, how about plan B.”
Richard Miller
Here’s my disagreement with what seems to be your approach… (Possible that I am misunderstanding you.)
Corruption is never OK “for consumer safety”. Take the corruption angle off the table, and then let’s talk about the third option.
As long as the corruption angle is considered as a valid option, it helps lock us into a false dichatomy of corruption vs. nothing.
I think entertaining CPSC’s collusion with corruption as a viable alternative to doing nothing actually hinders the probability of us heading down the third path.
TomD
Trampolines are the big counter-example – home owner’s insurance WILL go up (or be canceled) if they find out you have one; because it can injure someone ELSE.
PW
That’s probably because homeowners insurance usually has a personal liability component, and trampolines are often used by guests (and children). I don’t think that’s as true of personal table saws.
JR Ramos
As I’ve followed this saga lately and the blurbs when they sued Bosch years ago, I just can’t shake the idea that we’re just going about the whole thing wrong and that has reached a crescendo now with CPSC.
The tech/feature absolutely has great value, no question about that.
But at the root of this is simple user education. In the professional/industrial arena, the onus is on the employer to make sure employees are trained and using the tools correctly, and both OSHA and insurance companies serve as bumper guards there.
In the individual consumer/end user market however, there is no requirement for education and proper use other than what are now pretty perfunctory user manuals. That varies by company (Bosch still does a pretty good job with their manuals but they are still lacking…Milwaukee so-so but also pretty good).
“Back in the day” I remember many user manuals including a lot more information on the safe and/or successful operation of the tools, often including how to achieve common or special tasks, too.
What changed? Liability and negligence lawsuits. So the manuals changed – perfunctory but sufficient safety basics and a boilerplate “do not use without proper knowledge of safe operating…” language inserted usually in lieu of better, useful educational material. Sometimes broader less specific language results in a certain protection against many attack vectors for liability suits. The end result is what we see now – under educated users who are injuring themselves often enough to get the attention of federal watchdogs. Combine that with ultra cheap imported tool options and an also under educated culture of social media DIY “experts” or worse, and it’s been a perfect storm of bad decisions, failures to observe pretty basic safety and operation protocols, and everything else that ends up with unfortunate and mostly avoidable accidents.
I think maybe the better approach would be to require that education on safety and operation to be included in more detail/length with tools sold to the general public, and perhaps some legislative changes are necessary and should accompany that to help protect manufacturers from lawsuits that may blur the lines of ethics and fair expectations.
RTFM could be said and doing so would be more worthwhile. The fact that “I don’t read the manual, why bother” is such a longtime running joke may be testament to the root problem. There will always be people who remove or defeat mechanisms and are too proud to read a manual/think they know better, but I think most people do want to learn and be safe and do not want to get hurt. SawStop’s tech is great but it should not be forced upon the market, imho, not at the current costs (and repair/replacements costs). Let people choose that as they do now…but do try to provide better user education in the consumer market and force safety that way. Fix that basic system that was broken by often improper lawsuits with big $$$ consequences.
The bicycle industry went through similar things decades ago and more recently some of that resurfaced in the e-bike markets. Those arenas are still plagued with frequent manufacturing defects and resulting suits, but they overcame for the most part the trouble with education and liability for it. I don’t know why the tool industry hasn’t been able to do the same.
Stuart
How about a no-residue sticker being applied to table saw surfaces, or a “quick-start” guide taped on, with a few tips on “how to avoid grievous injury.”
Tool brands are giving so much money to the industry lobbyists, but how about some PSAs?
JR Ramos
Maybe that *in addition* to a decent non-perfunctory user manual. Still have to get people to read and follow, but it’s so sorely lacking now, even the better ones. Maybe also links to instructional industry-approved videos (easier for some to digest and something to be said for the visual aspect of learning a hands-on skill).
PSA…public service announcements? Wouldn’t hurt although I have no idea how effective those are and it depends on someone actually being present and available.
I’m kind of curious about Bosch’s stance and reasoning for not moving forward with some sort of saw tech. I’m sure it comes down to risk exposure and/or profitability but they’ve got so much money and muscle to make something happen. Wonder if there’s a chance they’d feel slighted by having to license someone else’s invention.
TomD
I think Bosch can look at the size of Sawstop and recognize the lack of a market there, unless enforced by law.
And they probably assume that even when enforced by law, it will drop the number of saw sales that they’re interested in significantly.
A table saw can already be partially be replaced by a track saw for many cuts, for example.
Michael F
I just want to point out that the 3rd district of South Carolina is right next to where every single TTI employee (including those who worked as product managers for Milwaukee and Rigid products) I’ve ever known lived. Technically, I don’t think they are in his district, but maybe he was a more willing ear than the district that covers Greenville itself.
CoBlue
The CPSC may not have the authority to mandate companies license essential safety patents under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but Congress does. If this legislation was actually intended to prevent a “monopoly” on table saws rather then it would simply do so. Instead, it only stalls progress towards making table saws safer by maintaining the status quo for the near future.
David
Couple of things:
The technology is good. Almost anything that’s reduces injuries is a step forward. Who could logically argue otherwise. It’s not about the technology.
IF SawStop actually intended on releasing their tightly held patents, they wouldn’t wait, based on whether the mandate passes, they would just release them to public domain. This leads me to believe that they are just puffing by SAYING that they will release the patents needed to manufacture a device similar to theirs. It is a ploy by SawStop to monopolize their already over priced saws, which, over the last two years, have lost market share.
What about all the other tools that private homeowners use, cause that’s what we’re really addressing. Commercial companies would just, in most cases, absorb the high prices and pass them on to the customer. Ladders, jacks, bandsaws, side grinders (lord they are super dangerous), nail guns, and let’s not forget the 30 thousand plus deaths and the 60 thousand plus injuries from firearms every year, that are being made less safe and more deadly.
Point of all this is money. Sawstop wants more and wants the government to force you to pay more to play. That’s it. I wholly support deferring this mandated safety device action until the patents run out. Not because of the safety aspects but because it’s just an attempt at a mandated money grab from a business.
Nothing new to see here folks.
Rob
They’re a business. Owned by a business. It would be negligent to hand over the patents without the regulations actually existing.
MikeB
Can someone please introduce legislation to un-fix the nozzle on my gas can?
Relevance (for those who don’t notice): Government should not be meddling in our everyday lives. If/when it does, the unintended consequences are usually not to our benefit. This only demonstrates the behemoth justifying itself.
I like SawStop and think they have a marvelous and innovative product. Maybe I’ll buy one.
Richard Miller
So an elected government entity is seeking to enact a law that an unelected government bureaucratic entity is seeking to impose. A law that is at the behest of a bad actor who is/was seeking to use the government to create a monopoly for themselves?
What’s not to like about this?
Whatever PTI is or isn’t doing right, pales in comparison to the absolute contempt I have for the immoral, crony capitalism actions of SawStop.
If SawStop’s disgusting behavior is OK because of “consumer safety”, then where is the line at which we will say that a vile action is OK for “consumer safety”?
I hope I am never in a position where I need to patronize SawStop. I hope I am never in a position where I have to indirectly put money into their “pocket”.
I dunno… I am probably being too vague about how I feel about the reprehensible practice of private companies using the government to create a monopoly. If anyone is unsure how I see this, let me know and I will try to clarify.
Stuart
Are you referring to the now-disassociated founders’ petition from 21 years ago, or anything done today?
It seems to me that the industry group managers, which a CPSC Commissioner describes as being hired to oppose safety regulation, weren’t making headway, so they lobbied a member brand’s local congressman to stonewall the CPSC, and then put it in the name of a freshman congresswoman from across the country with no obvious connections to the matter.
The ruling could save thousands of people from grievous injuries and permanent finger amputations every year, but it also has the potential to erase the entire compact portable jobsite table saw market.
Consumer and product safety groups support the rulemaking. Table saw makers oppose it.
In my opinion, based on everything I’ve read, SawStop stands to LOSE more with rulemaking than without, especially under FRAND terms. I believe a mandate is the last thing SawStop wants, from a business strategy point of view.
On one side, the CPSC rule could save a lot of fingers. On the other, jobsite table saws will remain on the market as-is and affordable. Is there any room for compromise?
This all has become an enormous mess.
Robert Adkins
We shouldn’t be debating how or when the government forces safety measures on the public, we should be debating whether the government has a right to do it.
Other thoughts: Good safety devices sell themselves, they don’t need to be forced upon us.
Stuart
Generally speaking, the government and all kinds of agencies have massive roles in matters of consumer safety. Are you saying they should not have any role in anything safety related, and that people should make their own determinations?
Drop-side cribs were banned to help reduce infant deaths. Infant car seats are required to help reduce infant injury, trauma, and death in a crash.
How many people wouldn’t buy infant car seats if it wasn’t required?
How many people wouldn’t pay extra for airbags in a car? Backup cameras?
Newly built or updated kitchen islands must have an electrical receptacle, larger ones must have more. How many people would skip that if they could?
Additional purchases aren’t always necessary, such as with “Back to Sleep” and “Safe to Sleep” campaigns designed to reduce the number of infant suffocation deaths.
https://safetosleep.nichd.nih.gov/campaign/history
Planters nuts were recalled yesterday, due to possible listeria contamination. Martinelli’s apple juice was recently recalled due to high test results for arsenic.
The government is more deeply involved in safety matters than most people realize or think about.
Table saws and miter saws have already been updated in recent years, to comply with new safety guidelines. How many people took notice? How many objected to increased costs associated with those updates? Prior to those updates, how many people bought 3rd party accessories to provide similar functionality, and how many didn’t? Most people reading this won’t have any clue as to what I’m referring to.
If you don’t want the government to “force safety measures on the public,” you’re living in the wrong country. European governments seem to be even stricter when it comes to consumer safety.
The only reason this particular rulemaking is up for such heavy debate is because everyone is still trying to figure out an accurate cost to society and individual consumers.
Keep in mind that none of what I’m saying here reflects my own opinions. Arguing that governing bodies should be dissociated from safety matters is moot. There are laws, regulations, and guidelines in all aspects of society, such as building codes, clothing flammability standards, and food safety.
Consumer product safety is part of it.